On 14 Jan 2004 Wechsler <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com> wrote:
Meng Weng Wong wrote:
I'm guessing SpamAssassin will distinguish between
- fail
- unknown (record exists)
- unknown (record does not exist)
and score the first very negatively and the second slightly negatively.
NO! No, no, and indeed NO!
If I've not clarified myself enough there, NO! This is a very very bad idea.
It is ESSENTIAL that a ?all record fares no worse than no record in spam
checking, otherwise publishing SPF records INCREASES the likelihood that
some of a domain's outgoing mail will be treated as spam, and people
will refuse to implement it.
I now have about a dozen friends and colleagues covering a far larger
number of domains who are prepared to implement SPF. This lies entirely
on my assertions that publishing SPF records will not harm the
"reputation" of any ?all mails.
If this is not the case, they (and, I would expect, many more) will
REFUSE to publish records.
Please EXCUSE the capitalisation, but I cannot make the above point
firmly enough. And I may be channeling ziggy...
You have hit the nail on the head. It is not the requirements of the RFC
that is bothering people, it's how people will be using the responses.
If it can be ensured that the ?all is not going to be rejected then those
large entities with thousands of SMTP servers all over the world will not
be all that adverse to implement. That said, as soon as the see people
in NANAE talking about rejecting on the ?all then you'll be back to
square one.
Since there are already people in this forum saying that the ?all
response should be treated differently than no response then I'm not all
that sure this is the case. I personally feel the RFC should state that
a ?all response MUST be treated no differently than no response.
Wechsler
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡
Thomas R. Stephenson, CPL Phone: (408) 742-3308
Lockheed Martin Technical Operations
MILSTAR Logistics Engineering O/M5-41 B/158
P.O. Box 61687 Sunnyvale, CA 94088-1687
Member Pegasus Mail Support Team
Thought for the day:
Technology: Once you can afford it, it's out of date.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡